PEDs, Steroids and the Hall of Fame

[Gonzaleznut]

I posted this on the Beckett forums and wanted to throw it out here. Please keep an open and reasonable mind as you read this. Even still, many of you will probably think I am nuts.

My take on all of this...(not an issue that will be going away anytime soon, BTW)

Either you vote on players based on the merit of their contibution to the game and disregard steroids altogether or you let no one in who played from 1990 through 2005. My drastic stance on this issue is based on logic and not emotion. Let me explain.

It is stupid to hold the players accountable for using any advantage they could to be the best at their job. Hell, i use PEDs (I drink coffee in the morning). I promise you it enhances my performance. MLB should have done a better job policing the situation instead of turning a blind eye. It really doesn't matter whose fault it was that it got out of hand...players or MLB. It was the nature of the game at the time.

Do you hold it against Babe Ruth that the baseball itself was changed to allow for the ball to be hit further after the "dead ball era of the early 1900s? Do you hold it against Bob Gibson because MLB raised the mound ushering in a great pitching renaissance in the 1960s? Do you blame Mickey Mantle for taking so many pain killers that most of us would die just so he could play on two legs that were a wreck?

No to all of the above. You take each players contribution to the game considering the era in which they played.

Every player that played during this era is under scrutiny. It doesn't matter if they have been named in any bogus report or a tell all book. EVERY player. Yes, that includes Jeter, Biggio, and all the other guys whom their fans will claim as "clean" and untouchable with regards to this subject.

How can you truly KNOW who is guilty of using PEDs and who isn't with 100% certainty? The answer is NONE!! My point is that it doesn't matter and we shouldn't care. Base their inclusion into the HOF on what they did for the game. Period.

I will use a player I like a lot as an example. Ivan Rodriguez. Do I think Pudge used PEDs? Probably. Do I care? No. Pudge was one of the top defensive catchers throughout his career. He has caught in more games than any other player in history. He has a trophy case full of Gold Gloves, All-Star appearances, even a World Series ring and an MVP. That is what he should be judged on. He gets in. Why? Because he was on of the best players in the game during the era in which he played.

Based on that simple logic (ignoring the PED issue altogether) then of course Arod and Bonds are in. McGwire and Sosa are no brainers too. Palmeiro, Ramirez, and Clemens are in easily. Sheffield and Giambi aren't good enough with or without PEDs. BTW, Jeter and Biggio are shoo ins too.

Make the arguement about a player's HOF worthiness about the players accomplishments on the field, not about steroids.

Either let them all in or none of them. There is no middle ground.

 

[Titans74]

Sheffield got good enough? I think you should check some stats before making ludicrous statements. I'm not even a fan of his but 509 home runs and 1,676 rbi are definitely above "good enough" to get into the HOF.

 

[Sean_C]

My feeling on the matter is this:

even if they weren't on them themselves, they

1). knew about it and were silent
2). benefited from their teammates that did use them (IE; scoring more runs, getting more RBIs, more wins, etc.)
3). even if they weren't taking them, odds are they were using one or more of the score of other things floating around the locker room (amphetamines, etc) that are apparently still in use to this day

I think as more time passes, the less up in arms people will be about it. Sure there will always be purists who cry foul (like the ones that still bitch about the DH), but the average fan will be more inclined to remember the good things the players did than the substances they were taking.

The only exceptions to the rule might be Palmeiro and Ramirez, since they just looked like total fools (Palmeiro's finger-waving testimony and Manny's excuses).

 

[Gonzaleznut]

Sheffield got good enough? I think you should check some stats before making ludicrous statements. I'm not even a fan of his but 509 home runs and 1,676 rbi are definitely above "good enough" to get into the HOF.

At least now we are arguing about what really matters. His stats and contributions.

My counterpoint to Sheffield. Sheffield only won one batting title. He never won an MVP award, a home run crown or led the league in any other statistical category. He only reached 500 home runs because he hung on two to three years too long. He also fared very poorly in the postseason. Was he a very good player? You bet, but given the era in which he played he was not one of the very best.

 

[Gonzaleznut]

The only exceptions to the rule might be Palmeiro and Ramirez, since they just looked like total fools (Palmeiro's finger-waving testimony and Manny's excuses).

Good points.

I agree that Palmeiro and Manny were idiots, but last I checked that is not a disqualifying factor for HOF induction.

 

[elmalo]

Why do you limit in to from 1990 to 2005? It should be from the late 60's on. Steroids have been part of the game of baseball since the late 60's and will continue to be a part of the game. Testing or not. There are so many ways to get around the testing that you have to be pretty sloppy to get caught. I say let them all in, I really dont care what kind of performance enhancers these men are putting into their bodies. Baseball is entertainment, always has been and always will be. I dont believe in the sanctity/innocence of the game bc it has always been and will always continue to be about entertainment and revenue.

 

[Hendersonfan]

Either let them all in or none of them. There is no middle ground.

I like this. If they let one deserving player in and not another it's not fair.

 

[Rocketman12]

I don't think admitted or proven PED users should be considered for the Hall of Fame. PED use is not the same as your cup of coffee; your cup of coffee is neither illegal nor against the rules of your workplace. PED use is more like throwing a spitball or swinging a corked bat on every play; the players who did it knew they were cheating. True, there might have been a large number of guys who ignored the rules, but some did not, and they should be honored for that. If we are just going to honor cheaters the same as non-cheaters, then why have rules against cheating in the first place?

The problem of course is that hard evidence and/or an admission doesn't exist for everyone, thus voters are hesitant to vote for "possible" PED users like Pudge Rodriguez and Bagwell. My solution would be to implement a procedure for throwing guys out of the Hall of Fame. I would have no problem with the "possible" candidate being enshrined, as long as their HOF status could be rescinded if/when hard evidence of PED use is found. I know it's not a perfect system, but I would think being thrown out of the HOF would be pretty humiliating.

 

[miguelcabrera]

take down the HOF. nobody gets in

 

[mlbsalltimegreats]

Sheffield got good enough? I think you should check some stats before making ludicrous statements. I'm not even a fan of his but 509 home runs and 1,676 rbi are definitely above "good enough" to get into the HOF.

At least now we are arguing about what really matters. His stats and contributions.

My counterpoint to Sheffield. Sheffield only won one batting title. He never won an MVP award, a home run crown or led the league in any other statistical category. He only reached 500 home runs because he hung on two to three years too long. He also fared very poorly in the postseason. Was he a very good player? You bet, but given the era in which he played he was not one of the very best.

Wrong on the Bolded he Led National League in On-base percentage in 1996 and Led National League in Batting Average and Total Bases in 1992. Infact if I remember correctly he was challenging for a triple crown that year. I am one of the few who think Sheffield should be a 1st ballot Hofer if not for his 500hrs then the fact that he was one of the best contact hitters and had one of the best eyes for a power hitter in his time. If you dont believe me just look at his Walks vs Strikeouts. The guy walked a lot more than he struck out which is a feat in and of its self for a 500hr hitter. look at all the other 500 hr hitter and count how many have more walks than strike outs and then look at the company he is in. He also had 4 top 10 Mvp seasons finishing 3rd twice, 6th and 9th. Dont quote me on this but I think hes still the all-time on Base Percentage leader for the Dodgers. Add into the fact that even hanging on he has a lifetime 292 Ba. Along with the Rbis and Hr totals he also had 1636 Runs, 2689 hits, career .900+ Ops, career .500+ Slg and 253 Stolen bases which he was no terror on the base paths but not bad numbers for a power hitter (Not Sure where that ranks among the other 500hr hitter). Was he the best in his time? No, but he was one of the best. I think if we are going to Knock sheffield it would be his post season play. Sure he had his moments but the rest of his post season play i cannot defend. Also remember he was part of the Marlin team in 1997 in which was one of the few times he dint completely stink it up in the world series against the Indians.

 

[jimfalbo21]

Sheffield got good enough? I think you should check some stats before making ludicrous statements. I'm not even a fan of his but 509 home runs and 1,676 rbi are definitely above "good enough" to get into the HOF.

At least now we are arguing about what really matters. His stats and contributions.

My counterpoint to Sheffield. Sheffield only won one batting title. He never won an MVP award, a home run crown or led the league in any other statistical category. He only reached 500 home runs because he hung on two to three years too long. He also fared very poorly in the postseason. Was he a very good player? You bet, but given the era in which he played he was not one of the very best.

Wow, I have always considered Sheffield to be a first-ballot HOFer, I am quite surprised to hear a different opinion.

~career 140 OPS+ (100 is average, 120 is considered an All-Star caliber season)

~.292/.393/.514 career

~9 all-star games, including 2 starts

~5 Silver Slugger Awards

~the aforementioned 509 HR's and 1,676 RBI's (last 3 years, ops+ 119, 89, 119) so he was very productive 2 out of the 3 years he "hung around too long"

~In an era that took shame away from striking out, Sheffield never fanned more than 83 times in a season, and averaged just 74 per 162 games for his career

~per 162 games over career: 103 Runs, 32 HR's, 105 RBI's, 16 SB's, 93 BB's

~Even in postseason where he batted just .248 and hit just 6 HR's in 202 PA's, his OBP was .402, suggesting that he was pitched around during most of his at bats, yes he was feared!

~It seemed to me that Sheffield was always considered an Elite hitter, and yes, I know that is subjective.

~He had a cool batting stance, always waggling that bat

 

[nosterbor]

I will not go down this road! I could care less any more about any sport. i watched 3 games last year and went to 2, just sick of the whole bs of it all.

 

[G $MONEY$]

Was he a very good player? You bet, but given the era in which he played he was not one of the very best.

This is just an absolute ludicrous statement. Sheffield was most definitely one of the best players of his era. It really surprises me to hear someone say that he wasn't one of the best of his era.

Also, he must not be all that bad in the post season as he was a World Series champion in 1997 with the Marlins.

When i was younger, a teenager, i remember there was at least a couple seasons were he was contending for the triple crown as well. Through the 90s and even into the early 2000s when he was a Yankee, i have always considered Sheff one of the leagues best, always considered him in the top 10 at very least.

 

[Gonzaleznut]

I will not go down this road! I could care less any more about any sport. i watched 3 games last year and went to 2, just sick of the whole bs of it all.

Come on Rob...I know you have an opinion on this. Let me hear it.

 

[bongo870]

in my opinion I believe anyone using an illegal drug and was caught or confess they should be banned from the hall. Taking steroids or any other substance that is illegal gives that player an advantage over other players that want to stay clean. People cry "yea but it wasn't against the baseball rules" crap all the time. it is still illegal whether you feel it should not be or not. I don't care if it was in the rules or not of baseball. It still is illegal. My work doesn't say anything about me smoking crack, does that mean I can do it and it is ok?
Anther statement people throw out is how baseball changed. "the made the mounds higher" "the outfield wall is closer" and so forth. These changes affect everyone in baseball. not just a few players. So if you decide to break the law and take an illegal drug that gives you an advantage then you are cheating and should be banned from baseball forever.
I also love the people who cry "steroids don't give you an advantage" They why are they taking them? What is the use of pumping that junk into your body? I can understand using it to help heal a muscle. Or a injury but to those who abuse it to give themselves a advantage over others who want to be clean is cheating.
I find it sad how fans turn the blind eye to players using illegal drugs just to make the game better. the "I don't care what they are doing. It makes baseball better" thing just doesn't fly for me.
Another thing people throw out is "Yea but Babe Ruth ate a lot of hot dogs" That would give him a disadvantage. or "yea but so and so took coke or smoked pot" That again would give you a disadvantage. And yes I feel if you are caught taking any kind of illegal drug when you play you should be banned. What kind of picture are we paining for the younger generation when we turn a blind eye to these players taking drugs?
Sorry for the long read just my 2 cents

 

[hive17]

Honestly, the only people I have problems with are the "testifiers", the guys who talked all this **** about how they never did anything or wouldn't talk about the problem, then got caught. And I think that will all be washed away by history.

Let me ask you this: what is the difference between taking something to make you heal faster, and taking a different, stronger, part of your body and surgically grafting it to an injured, weaker, part of your body? Or taking a laser and transforming your eyes from blurry messes to near 20/20 vision?

My friend has this idea that, in the future, everyone in the stands will be using HGH or some equivilent, feeling strong and healthy; yet at the same time, we'll demand that our baseball players be pure as the driven snow. And I don't think that idea is all that insane.

 

[PujolsCollector]

McGwire and Sosa absolutely deserve to be in. Those 2 saved baseball.

 

[bongo870]

Honestly, the only people I have problems with are the "testifiers", the guys who talked all this shat about how they never did anything or wouldn't talk about the problem, then got caught. And I think that will all be washed away by history.

Let me ask you this: what is the difference between taking something to make you heal faster, and taking a different, stronger, part of your body and surgically grafting it to an injured, weaker, part of your body? Or taking a laser and transforming your eyes from blurry messes to near 20/20 vision?

My friend has this idea that, in the future, everyone in the stands will be using HGH or some equivilent, feeling strong and healthy; yet at the same time, we'll demand that our baseball players be pure as the driven snow. And I don't think that idea is all that insane.

The thing is that these things are legal. If you have something wrong and need to fix it then fine. That is done by a doc and isn't against the law. But to juice up and you aren't even hurt? Then that is wrong.
I saw a show where they were looking into high school kids taking steroids to be like these huge sport players that use them. Now these huge stars have the money and know how to get the good illegal drugs. These kids cant do that and they are putting crap into there bodies. is this what you want for our future athletes?

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

The average person could reasonably think you're taking a black and white stance on this presumably to force your agenda on this topic, which one could probably think is that Juan Gone deserves serious HOF consideration (?).

However the truth is that steroid use in the MLB and by extension the HOF is by no means the black and white issue you make it out to be here.

HOF voting processes and selection criteria are sophisticated enough to accommodate gray issues such as steroid use and other similar issues, the problem (for better or for worse) is that you and some others probably don't trust the individuals voting to make appropriate judgments - or at least judgments that would conform to your own.

Nobody thinks existing HOF members are perfect, however there is enough evidence out there for HOF voters to make appropriate, reasonable judgments.

I posted this on the Beckett forums and wanted to throw it out here. Please keep an open and reasonable mind as you read this. Even still, many of you will probably think I am nuts.

My take on all of this...(not an issue that will be going away anytime soon, BTW)

Either you vote on players based on the merit of their contibution to the game and disregard steroids altogether or you let no one in who played from 1990 through 2005. My drastic stance on this issue is based on logic and not emotion. Let me explain.

It is stupid to hold the players accountable for using any advantage they could to be the best at their job. Hell, i use PEDs (I drink coffee in the morning). I promise you it enhances my performance. MLB should have done a better job policing the situation instead of turning a blind eye. It really doesn't matter whose fault it was that it got out of hand...players or MLB. It was the nature of the game at the time.

Do you hold it against Babe Ruth that the baseball itself was changed to allow for the ball to be hit further after the "dead ball era of the early 1900s? Do you hold it against Bob Gibson because MLB raised the mound ushering in a great pitching renaissance in the 1960s? Do you blame Mickey Mantle for taking so many pain killers that most of us would die just so he could play on two legs that were a wreck?

No to all of the above. You take each players contribution to the game considering the era in which they played.

Every player that played during this era is under scrutiny. It doesn't matter if they have been named in any bogus report or a tell all book. EVERY player. Yes, that includes Jeter, Biggio, and all the other guys whom their fans will claim as "clean" and untouchable with regards to this subject.

How can you truly KNOW who is guilty of using PEDs and who isn't with 100% certainty? The answer is NONE!! My point is that it doesn't matter and we shouldn't care. Base their inclusion into the HOF on what they did for the game. Period.

I will use a player I like a lot as an example. Ivan Rodriguez. Do I think Pudge used PEDs? Probably. Do I care? No. Pudge was one of the top defensive catchers throughout his career. He has caught in more games than any other player in history. He has a trophy case full of Gold Gloves, All-Star appearances, even a World Series ring and an MVP. That is what he should be judged on. He gets in. Why? Because he was on of the best players in the game during the era in which he played.

Based on that simple logic (ignoring the PED issue altogether) then of course Arod and Bonds are in. McGwire and Sosa are no brainers too. Palmeiro, Ramirez, and Clemens are in easily. Sheffield and Giambi aren't good enough with or without PEDs. BTW, Jeter and Biggio are shoo ins too.

Make the arguement about a player's HOF worthiness about the players accomplishments on the field, not about steroids.

Either let them all in or none of them. There is no middle ground.

 

[muskiesfan]

McGwire and Sosa absolutely deserve to be in. Those 2 saved baseball.

McGwire does not deserve to be enshrined, period. He hit a lot of home runs. I'm tired of hearing about him "saving" baseball as well.

He doesn't have 2,000 hits, he's a career .263 hitter, he's got more strike outs than RBI and almost more strike outs than hits. I'm not saying that he wasn't an impressive power hitter, he was. Nothing else about him is Hall of Fame worthy.

People only use his home run total and 1998. Don't get me wrong, he has the rookie record for home runs as well, but he's not a Hall of Famer. You take away his home runs and he barely has 1,000 hits (1,043 to be exact).